DCIT, CHENNAI V. Sundaram Auto Components Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1300/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7969 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1300/MDS/2016 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S SUNDARAM AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NO.29, JAYALAKSHMI ESTATES, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034. PAN : AAACS 7027 G (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCA TE 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2016 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 15, CHEN NAI, DATED 09.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. NO.1300/MDS/16 2. SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED 10% ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ANOTHER 10% WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION TO CARRY FORWARD THE BALANCE DEPRECIA TION IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, THE LD.COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECI ATION WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN MEENAKSHI (INDIA) LT D. V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO. 206/MDS/2016 DATED 07.04.2016. AFTER RE FERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. RITTAL I NDIA PVT. LTD. (2016) 380 ITR 423, AN IDENTICAL CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE BEFORE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN RITTAL INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THIS TRIBU NAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY. IN FACT, THE 3 I.T.A. NO.1300/MDS/16 CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN RITTAL INDI A PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE CI T(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) -15, CHENNAI-34 4. 0 81 /CIT-6, CHENNAI-34 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.